Spookiest Years, Part 18: The Years 1907 - 1909

In previous posts in this intermittently appearing "Spookiest Years" series on this blog (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,  here, here, here, here, here and here) I had looked at some very spooky events reported between 1848 and 1889.  Let me pick up the thread and discuss some spooky events reported in the years 1907 to 1909.

The journal The Annals of Psychical Science was the English language version of the French journal Annales des Sciences Psychique. In the April-June 1909 edition of The Annals of Psychical Science, which you can read here, we have some fascinating accounts of paranormal phenomena.  

On page 271 we have a paper by Dr. Julien Ochorowicz, describing experiments with the Polish medium Stanislas Tomczyk. We are told on page 274 that all of the experiments were conducted in good light, after Tomczyk was hypnotized by Ochorowicz. There is a very long documented history of paranormal phenomena seeming to occur under hypnosis, with very many reports from respected witnesses of clairvoyance occurring very powerfully under hypnosis. In the paper by Ochorowicz we have a long description of what sounds like telekinetic effects produced on a clock. 

Later in the same edition on page 285 we have an account of levitation effects produced during seances with the medium Francesco Carancini. The report is preceded by quite a few photographs showing objects floating mysteriously in the air.  Below are two of the photos, one (Figure 7 of the paper) seeming to show the levitation of a violin, and the other (Figure 37 of the paper) seeming to show the levitation of a trumpet:

We hear early in the account (page 286) that events such as this were witnessed by very many distinguished observers:

"The experimenters include Professors L. M. Milese, of the U niversity of Rome, V. Tummulo, De Franciscis, Doctor Cesari, and many others, well-known in scientific circles in Rome ; also the Duke of Cardinale, Baron Von Bilgner, Count Violara, Duke of Ayala Muntzer, Marquise Lanza, Countess Paglioni, and other residents of Rome. Several visitors to Rome have also been present at some of the seances: Prof. Schiller of the University of Oxford, M. Serge Yourievitch, Secretary of the Institut Psychologique in Paris, the Hon. Everard Feilding, Hon. Secretary of the Society for Psychical Research in London, Senor Pedroso, Plenipotentiary Minister of Cuba, and M. Mezroculos, Ambassador of Greece."

On page 288 we read this list of phenomena produced in the seances of Carancini:

"Among the phenomena observed we notice : 

 1. Transport and levitation of objects. 

2. Impressions on clay. 

3. Writing on lamp black in ltalian, Latin, modern and ancient Greek, and in an unknown language resembling Arabic. 

4. Luminous phenomena. 

5. Dematerialization and rematerialisation of matter."

Here I should note the extreme inaccuracy of statements made by skeptics about paranormal phenomena. You will hear such skeptics say things such as that spooky seance phenomena always occur in the dark, and that such phenomena never show up in photographs.  Such generalizations are not at all true.  We see above photographs of apparent levitations occurring in full light, and countless other photos have been taken of levitations. The phenomena of the 19th century medium Daniel Dunglas Home (such as levitations of Home and the playing of musical instruments no one touched) were reported by very many witnesses as occurring in full light. In general, you should follow the rule of "never trust any generalization about paranormal phenomena made by skeptics."  Skeptics routinely throw out untrue generalizations about types of phenomena they have not decently studied. 

The account of the Carancini sessions gives us the type of high quality evidence that we would like to have, consisting of dated accounts listing all the witnesses who were present. The location was the home of Baron Von Erhardt. Below are some of them (each account includes mention of many spooky phenomena, but I will quote only the most dramatic parts):

• "Tuesday, May 12th (from 9.30 to II p.m., 1908). Present: Sig. C. Serra, Duca di Cardinale, Fraulein Eliza Miinbher, Baron Bilguer, Doctor Corsi, Prof. Monnosi, Signora Trevisani and daughter, and the medium Carancini.,.. A tambourine played and danced about in mid-air for several seconds... Some photographs were taken with magnesium, among which, that of a violin suspended in the air (see Figure 37) and which fell, without the least noise, to the left of Fraulein Miinbher." 
• "June 25th, 1908. (32nd Seance.) Present: Sig. Basile, Doctor Corsi, Commander Monnosi, Signora Trevisani and daughter, Baron Von Erhardt and tbe medlinn Carancini....and now the phenomenon of levitation took place ; after a few seconds of hesitation, the heavy table rose gently from the ground, the medium called out 'fire! fire!' (juoco, fuoco), signifying that a photograph of the phenomenon could be taken. Baron Von Erhardt delayed, losing time in finding the spring which lights the magnesium, but, in spite of this delay, the film reproduces the table placed above the shoulders of the medium and the side-board near him. (See Fig. 5.)"
• "September 18th, 1908. (45th Seance.) Present : Sig. and Signora Giannini, Sig. and Signora Steffoni, Signora Belloni, Signora Levi, Prof. Monnosi, Sig. Basile, Baron Von Erhardt, Carancini. ..The violin, dancing about in mid-air (in the light and, consequently, distinctly perceived by everyone present), touched several heads, then fell on to the same big table." 
• "November 20th, 1908. (65th Seance.) Present : Doctor and Signora Cesare; Signora Belloli and daughter; Sig. Giannini and daughter; Prof. Monnosi, the writer, Baron Von Erhardt, Carancini. Phenomena: The big table is levitated on one side and rapped several times, with its legs....The musical box and trumpet are carried from the sideboard, where they were standing, on to the table ; the camera has caught the trumpet in mid-air (see Fig. 7)."

We are told that the medium was himself levitated, although the photograph fails to capture him being clear of all material support (unlike the photos of the levitated violin and trumpet, which do seem to show them clear of all material support). We read this:

"At the seance held on the evening of November 27th, I908, the phenomenon of the levitation of the medium occurred; he was levitated to the height of one yard, a phenomenon distinctly visible to the spectators; the controllers verified all absence of support from the table or chair. Unfortunately, the photograph (Fig. 35) does not show the medium's feet, nor testify to this complete absence of normal support vouched for by the controllers. We reproduce it, nevertheless, for the benefit of our readers.."

In the next two editions of the  The Annals of Psychical Science (here and here) Dr. Julien Ochorowicz, continues to describe experiments with the Polish subject Stanislawa Tomczyk. We have quite a few photos of her performing levitations on small objects. Below is Figure 5, entitled "Levitation of a magnet."

On page 334 of the edition here, the July- September 1909 edition of The Annals of Psychical Science, Ochorowicz reports telekinetic phenomena and possibly teleportation phenomena occurring around Stanislawa Tomczyk:  "Several objects were brought from a room on the ground floor, a handful of snow fell on to the table, a metal seal was put into my pocket, a piece of charcoal was thrown at us from the stove, over three yards away, the large clock hanging on the wall was opened and stopped, the cord of an electric bell was shaken about and pressed and the bell set ringing, etc." Using the word "apport" which may refer to a mysterious appearance, Ochorowicz states this on page 372: "The apport of a dumb-bell, weighing two pounds, was effected yesterday without fatigue to a distance of more than three yards, and a handful of snow was brought from outside, by request, through closed doors."

Later in the same edition of The Annals of Psychical Science, we read a report on tests with the Italian medium Eusapia Palladino. The amount of time that Palladino was investigated by scientists was enormous. On page 401 we read "Eusapia Paladino gave forty-three sittings to the Institut General Psychologique during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907." Skeptics always try to to dismiss the case of Palladino by pointing out cases in which she broke rules she was supposed to follow, claiming that such cases were cheating. There is a reason why such claims have little relevance.

It was well-known by all her investigators that Eusapia would frequently break rules she was told to follow, if she was allowed to do so. There are various possible explanations for particular events of this type: (1) possibly she didn't understand the concept of needing to follow experimental rules, or (2) she might have been trying to trick people, or (3) she might have been often unable to follow rules because of being in a state of trance in which rule-following can't be expected. Whatever the reason was for her failure to follow experimental rules if allowed to do so, all of her main experimenters knew that she could not be counted on to willfully follow such rules; so they followed a habit of testing her under strict conditions in which cheating was impossible.  It was under such strict "cheat-proof" conditions that Palladino's most spectacular results were very often obtained. The fact is that many different experimenters tested Palladino under conditions in which cheating was not possible, and under such conditions all kinds of astonishing paranormal effects were observed.  Such paranormal effects were observed by many observers in good light, and very often photographed. The observers were very often scientists and medical men, many of whom seemed to hate observing what they observed. The observers included very distinguished figures such as Marie Curie. 

On page 404 of the publication, we have this account of paranormal effects occurring in the presence of Eusapia under tightly controlled conditions that should have made cheating impossible. 

"The two hands, feet, and knees of Eusapia · being controlled, the table is raised suddenly, all four feet leaving the ground, then two and again four feet; Eusapia closes her fists, and holds them towards the table, which is then completely raised · from the floor five times in succession, five raps being also given. It is again completely raised, whilst each of Eusapia's hands is on the head of a sitter. It is raised to the height of one foot from the floor and suspended in the air for seven seconds while Eusapia kept her hand on the table and a lighted candle was placed under the table; it was completely raised to a height of ten inches from the floor and suspended in the air for four seconds, M. Curie only having his hand on the table, Eusapia's hand being placed on top of his. It was completely raised when M. Curie had his hand on Eusapia's knees and Eusapia had one hand on the table and the other on M. Curie's hand, her feet tied to the chair on which she was sitting. Two and then four feet of the table were raised when a weight of ten kilogrammes was placed on the table, the hands, feet, and knees of Eusapia being thoroughly controlled. It was completely raised when touched by no one, not even Eusapia, she being under perfect control."

Again we have a report of the complete levitation of an untouched table, something that occurs in great abundance in the literature of the 19th century and early twentieth century, with very many distinguished observers reporting such an effect. 

On the next pages in this edition of the Annals of Psychical Science (the July- September 1909 edition) we have these reports of paranormal effects occurring around Eusapia:

• "At another complete levitation, all standing up, the table rose to eighteen inches from the floor: someone asked the table to break: one leg was broken" -- page 405.
• Both a curtain and Eusapia's gown "swelled out" as if blown by some supernatural wind -- page 406. 
• A variety of objects were mysteriously moved around or mysteriously broken -- page 407.
• "A three-legged wooden table, placed at a distance of a yard from Eusapia, and connected with a registering apparatus, came forward or went backwards at Eusapia's command; it was even pushed and thrown against the wall, Eusapia's feet being tied by laces to the legs of her chair." -- page 407.
• Various reports of witnesses being touched as if by invisible hands -- page 408. 
• "Blueish phosphorescent lights appeared and disappeared in turn about Eusapia's forehead, on her right side, on the black background of the curtain, and on the table." -- page 408. 
• "Lights were rising out of the centre of Eusapia's body" -- page 408.
• "Two very bright luminous specks appeared over Eusapia's head" -- page 409.
• "Forms of hands, luminous fingers, were seen at the same time that contacts were felt." -- page 409. 
• "Eusapia succeeded at discharging at a distance three electroscopes of different construction" -- page 412. 

There are very many distinguished witnesses in many different years who claimed to have seen the most inexplicable and paranormal phenomena in the presence of Eusapia Palladino. To read long accounts, you can read my posts here and here. On page 556 of a 1907 edition of The Annals of Psychical Science, we read this about scientific investigation of Eusapia Palladino:

"Naples. They have been perhaps more important than all that have preceded them, because conducted under even more severe scientific control. These seances took place in the laboratory of Professor Ph.  Bottazzi, Director of the Physiological Institute in the University of Naples. There were also present, Dr. G. Galeotti, Professor of General Pathology in the University of Naples; Dr. T. De Amicis, Professor of Dermatology and Syphilography at the same University, Dr. 0. Scarpa, Professor of Electro-Chemistry at the Polytechnic School in Naples; M. E. Jona, Senator, President of the Italian Electro. Technical Association; Dr. A. Cardarelli, Senator, Professor of Clinical Medicine in the University of Naples; M. N. Minutillo, Professor of Jurisprudence in the University. Mme. Bottazzi was also present at two seances, in the course of which mediumistic faculties revealed themselves in her-which disturbed her considerably. By the light of three lamps the table round which the experimenters were seated was seen to rise as high as nearly half a yard (4oc.) or to float in the air untouched, without any contact with Eusapia, for about twenty-five minutes; then apparitions of hands began, and of black heads, etc."

For a book length account of such phenomena, you can use the link here to read "Eusapia Palladino and Her Phenomena" by Hereward Carrington. Accounts of paranormal phenomena occurring around Eusapia Palladino sometimes appeared in mainstream newspapers. Using the links below, you can read a lengthy 1907 account of the investigations of Eusapia Palladino, which appeared in the mainstream Washington D.C. newspaper The Evening Star (a paper I once delivered to subscribers when I was a boy). The account says that several types of dramatic paranormal phenomena were witnessed by hundreds.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1907-09-22/ed-1/seq-37/

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1907-09-22/ed-1/seq-38/

In 1910 there appeared the following newspaper account about one of the mediums discussed above:

I could have made a Part 19 for this "Spookiest Years" series by using material from my two posts below. But rather than repeating such material, I will merely refer the reader to such posts:

Early 20th Century Evidence for Paranormal Phenomena

More Early 20th Century Evidence for Paranormal Phenomena

Postscript: Below is another spooky account from the middle of this 1907-1909 time period:

You can read account at the link below:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042242/1908-09-06/ed-1/seq-1/

A Search of "Genetic Architecture" Papers Helps Show DNA Is No Body Blueprint

What I call the Great DNA Myth is a false teaching that continues to be spread by innumerable people in the world of biology, even though there are very many other authorities in that same world who are telling us the teaching is false.  The Great DNA Myth is the myth that inside DNA is some blueprint or recipe that specifies how to make a human body.  

There are various ways in which this false idea is stated, all equally false:

• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a blueprint for an organism.
• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a recipe for making an organism.
• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a program for building an organism.
• Someone may claim that DNA or genomes specify the anatomy of an organism. 
• Someone may claim that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) specify phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism).
• Someone may claim that phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism) are "expressions" of genotypes (the DNA in organisms). 
• Someone may claim that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) "map"  phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism) or "map to" phenotypes.
• Someone may claim that DNA contains "all the instructions needed to make an organism."
• Someone may claim that there is a "genetic architecture" for an organism's body or some fraction of that body. 
• Using a little equation, someone may claim that a "genotype plus the environment equals the phenotype," a formulation as false  as the preceding statements, since we know of nothing in the environment that would cause phenotypes to arise from genotypes that do not specify such phenotypes. 

Weaker formulations of this false idea include claims that DNA is "life's instruction book" or "the key to life" or "the book of life" or "the secret of life." While such rather vague assertions are not as explicitly false as the statements in the bullet list above, such formulations are equally misleading, as they insinuate the false claims in such a bullet list. 

There is no truth to the claim that DNA is a specification for anatomy.  DNA merely specifies low-level chemical information such as which sequences of amino acids make up polypeptide chains that are the starting points of protein molecules.

There are various ways to demonstrate the untruthfulness of claims that DNA is a blueprint for making human bodies or human minds. One way is to quote scientists who deny such a claim. I have a long list of quotes from biologists and chemists and doctors who deny that DNA is any such thing as a blueprint or recipe or program for making humans. You can read that list at the end of the post here.

Another way to debunk the claim that DNA is a blueprint for making a human body is to point out the simple fact that blueprints don't build things. Buildings get built when agents intelligent enough to read and understand blueprints act by reading blueprints and then start using them as guides for how to construct something.  So the idea that a human body arises from a one-cell zygote because of the reading of a blueprint is nonsensical. Even if such a blueprint existed in DNA, it would not cause the construction of a human body. If such a blueprint existed, it would be a fantastically complex set of constructions, given the enormous complexity and hierarchical organization of the human body. There would be nothing inside the womb of a mother capable of reading and understanding a body blueprint if it existed inside DNA. 

Another way to debunk the claim that DNA is a blueprint for making a human body is to simply describe what we know about the coding system in DNA, and mention how such a coding system is an extremely simple system that is purely concerned with low-level chemicals, and has no handling at all of high-level anatomy. The only coding system discovered in DNA is what is called the genetic code. That is a coding system so simple it can be depicted in a simple diagram. Below is a diagram depicting the genetic code:

The letters such as A, C, T and G are the four types of nucleotides that can exist in DNA. Different triplets of these nucleotides stand for different amino acids such as lysine and leucine. Under such a coding system, the only thing that can be represented in DNA is low level chemical information such as which amino acids make up a protein. No one has ever discovered any high-level coding system in DNA under which parts of DNA can stand for things more complicated than lowly amino acids. 

It is impossible to even represent in DNA one of the lowly organelles that are the building blocks of cells. It is also impossible to represent in DNA a cell or an organ or a bone or a body structure.  The very low-level coding system used by DNA is utterly incapable of such representations. Similarly, under a primitive coding system such as "thumbs up means I like it" and "thumbs down means I don't like it," you can indicate your approval or disapproval of things. But so primitive a coding system is utterly incapable of transmitting complex construction information such as how to build a house. 

The diagram below shows the hierarchical organization of the human body, and which parts of it are not specified by DNA. 

There is an additional way to show how groundless are claims that DNA is a blueprint or recipe or program for making human bodies or minds. We can search the scholarly literature for papers using the phrase "genetic architecture" or "DNA architecture."  Such a search will show that no robust evidence has ever been reported of any such thing as a genetic architecture for a body or a genetic architecture for an organ or a genetic architecture for a mind or even a genetic architecture of a cell.  

Before discussing the results of such searches, I can discuss a type of study called a Genome-Wide Association Study or GWAS.  In this study no attempt will be made to describe how genes could be the cause of some trait or structure. What will merely go on is that some statistical analysis will be made from some database of genomes and physical or mental characteristics.  The results reported in such studies are typically small effects that you would expect to get by chance, even if DNA and genes entirely fail to specify body structure and minds. 

Attempt #1: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture"

First, I went to the Google Scholar page and used a search phrase of only "genetic architecture."  Using this phrase and looking at the first 100 search results, I found no papers claiming a genetic architecture of the human structure or any organ or cell in the human body. The results were mainly papers claiming a genetic architecture of low-level things.  Some of the papers are listed below:

• The genetic architecture of Type 2 diabetes
• The genetic architecture of Parkinson's disease
• The genetic architecture of multiple myeloma
• The genetic architecture of COVID-19
• The genetic architecture of colorectal cancer

There was a paper with the nonsensical title "The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences."  The paper title is nonsensical because of the utter impossibility of expressing such preferences in DNA or the genes that are part of DNA. The paper did not produce findings justifying its title. To the contrary, the paper states this:

"Our analysis of individual SNPs does not reveal any associations that are significant at the conventional threshold of genome-wide significance required in genetic association studies. This is unsurprising in light of the accumulating evidence that the effects of common variants on complex outcomes are small (47), especially in the context of social science traits."

A 2013 paper discusses the lack of evidence for any genetic basis for social traits:

"Despite the extraordinary promise of extending genetic research to behavioral traits, results of studies that have searched for genetic variants associated with these traits have so far been disappointing: No strong, replicable associations have been discovered. Most of the claims of genetic associations with such traits have turned out to be false positives, or at best vast overestimates of true effect sizes. Chabris et al. (11)  found that across 3 independent samples, only 1 of 12 published associations of particular genes with general intelligence replicated, and this association replicated in only 1 of the samples. Worse, the new samples were considerably larger than the originals, which suggests that all of these reports were probably false positives. Similarly, Benjamin et al. (4)  found a SNP associated with educational attainment and cognitive function but could not replicate it in 3 independent samples. Benjamin et al. (12a)  likewise found no significant associations with any member of a set of traits involving economic and political behavior. Finally, Beauchamp et al. (12b)  conducted a GWAS of educational attainment (i.e., years of education completed) and found no hits that met conventional genome-wide significance levels; those that approached significance did not replicate in a second sample." 

There was a paper with the misleading title "Insights into the genetic architecture of the human face." See the post here for a lengthy discussion of why this paper failed to show any such thing as a genetic architecture of the human face. 

There is a paper with the title "Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Major Depression." The title is misleading, because the paper does not describe any such genetic architecture. For example, we read this in the paper:

"But, what of candidate genes for MD [major depression]? Recently, Border et al. (2019) evaluated 18 major depressive disorder candidate genes (e.g., SLC6A5, BDNF, COMT, and HTR2A). In an extensive set of analyses of empirical data, they did not find much support for any candidate gene. We refer the reader to this paper for full details, but these authors concluded: 'The study results do not support previous depression candidate gene findings, in which large genetic effects are frequently reported in samples orders of magnitude smaller than those examined here. Instead, the results suggest that early hypotheses about depression candidate genes were incorrect and that the large number of associations reported in the depression candidate gene literature are likely to be false positives. ' ”

Any attempt to show a genetic cause of depression by showing that genomes may make a person more prone to depression will fail to show a direct genetic cause of mental attitudes. What happens is that people with various types of physical ailments or birth defects are more likely to be depressed, because of their physical shortcomings or afflictions. So you can't identify any gene directly causing depression (as opposed to a gene causing some physical problem that may contribute to depression).  

Another paper produced by the search is a 2006 paper entitled "The molecular genetic architecture of human personality: beyond self-report questionnaires." The paper claims this: "Several new paradigms especially functional neuroimaging or ‘imaging genomics’ have strengthened the connection between 5-HTTLPR and anxiety-related personality traits." But the association is not valid. Here is a quote by an expert I quoted in a post I wrote in 2019:

"Using data from large groups of volunteers -- between 62,000 and 443,000 people -- the scientific study attempted to find whether there was any evidence that any of the genes (such as SLC6A4 and 5-HTTLPR) linked to depression were more common in people who had depression. 'We didn't find a smidge of evidence,' says Matthew Keller, the scientist who led the study.  'How on Earth could we have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars studying pure noise?' asks Keller, suggesting that hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent trying to show a genetic correlation (between genes such as SLC6A4 and depression) that didn't actually exist. "

The search also reveals a paper entitled "The Genetic Architecture of the Human Cerebral Cortex."  The paper fails to discuss any specification of the structure of the human cerebral cortex in genes, and fails to discuss any way in which DNA or genes could specify any of the neuron cells that make up the cortex.  What we have is simply another GWAS study attempting to statistically associate variations in DNA with tiny differences in brains. As it failed to show any actual specification of brain structure by genes or DNA, the paper should have been entitled something like "DNA Differences Can Affect Brain Structure."

Going through the first 100 papers that appear after a search on Google Scholar using only the term "genetic architecture," I found nothing to support claims that DNA is a blueprint or recipe or program for making a human body or making a human mind. Almost all of the papers were those claiming a genetic architecture of diseases. The few papers that referred to a genetic architecture of some large structure (such as eyes or the cerebral cortex) were simply mistitled papers. For example, the paper with a title referring to a "genetic architecture of the human face" should have been titled something "Genomic effects on face appearance." And the paper entitled "The Genetic Architecture of the Human Cerebral Cortex" should have been titled "Gene effects on brain structure." 

Attempt #2:  Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "DNA Architecture of"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "DNA architecture of," I found not a single one with a title that claims to have found any such thing as a DNA architecture of the human body or the human mind or any organ in the human body or any cell in the human body. 

Attempt #3: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Eyes"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of eyes," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a genetic architecture of eyes. All that I find are a few claiming a genetic architecture of eye color. 

Attempt #4: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "DNA Architecture of Eyes"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "DNA architecture of eyes," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a DNA architecture of eyes

Attempt #5: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Hearts"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of hearts," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a genetic architecture of hearts. All that I find are a few claiming a genetic effect on some types of heart disease.

Attempt #6: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "DNA  Architecture of Hearts"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "DNA architecture of hearts," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a DNA architecture of hearts. 

Attempt #7: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Human Body"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of human body," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a genetic architecture of the human body. 

Attempt #8: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "DNA  Architecture of Human Body"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "DNA architecture of human body," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a DNA architecture of the human body. 

Attempt #9: Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Human Structure"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of human structure," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a genetic architecture of the human structure.

Attempt #10:  Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Human Skeleton"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of human skeleton," I found only a single one that refers to a genetic architecture of the human skeleton. One paper has the title "The Genetic Architecture of the Human Skeletal Form." The paper attempts to find associations between genes and things such as height and skeletal defects.  No claim is made of genes that actually specify the human skeleton or any bone in the human skeleton. The human body has 206 bones. The paper makes no claim that any gene specifies the structure of any one of these bones.  The title "The Genetic Architecture of the Human Skeletal Form" does not match any claims made in the paper. 

Attempt #11:  Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "Genetic Architecture of Cells"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "genetic architecture of cells," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a genetic architecture of cells.

Attempt #12:  Searching for Papers Using the Phrase "DNA  Architecture of Cells"

Looking through 100 science papers that show up after doing a Google Scholar search using the phrase "DNA architecture of cells," I found not a single one that claims to have found any such thing as a DNA architecture of human cells. I did find a paper entitled "DNA Replication and Genomic Architecture of Very Large Bacteria." The paper gives us a good example of an inappropriate use of the phrase "genetic architecture." The paper does nothing to show there is a genetic architecture for bacteria, showing no such thing as a DNA plan for making a bacteria. It merely claims that very large bacteria have larger DNA.  Neither DNA nor its genes contain any specification of how to make a bacteria, or even any of the organelles that make up such a bacteria. 

 Conclusion

The searches above help show that claims that DNA is a blueprint, recipe or program for making human bodies are groundless.  If such claims were true, then doing the searches above would reveal a great abundance of substantive papers that showed something like a  genetic architecture of the human body or the genetic architecture of cells or the genetic architecture of the human skeleton or the genetic architecture of human structure or the genetic architecture of eyes or the genetic architecture of the heart. The searches above produce no such thing. The closest matches found are simply papers that establish how genes influence things such as the structure of cells or the structure of eyes or the structure of the skeleton or the structure of the heart or the overall human structure. None of the papers establish that genes or DNA specify any such thing as a specification of the structure of cells or the structure of eyes or the structure of the skeleton or the structure of the heart or the overall human structure.

A great technique to help show that baloney is baloney and that bunk is bunk and that lies are lies is to dismantle a big lie by asking smaller related questions. Here is an example of using such a technique, in which John debunks a false boast made about someone living in a grand home like a mansion.  

John: So where do you live?

Bill:  I live in such a magnificent house! I think of it as my mansion. I'm living like a king. 

John: So how many bedrooms are there?

Bill:  Uh, just one.

John: And how many bathrooms do you have?

Bill: Uh, just one. 

John: So you must have a big living room, right?

Bill: Well, it fits me and my wife in it. 

John:  How big is the back yard and front yard?

Bill: Well, we don't actually have a back yard. But we have a little front yard. It's big enough to fit 2 plastic patio chairs. 

John: Do you have one of those big kitchens?

Bill: Well, it's more like a kitchenette with a hot plate and a mini-fridge, on the left side of our little living room.

John: It sounds like you're actually living in a mobile home, right?

Bill: But I'm very proud of it. It's one of the best in our trailer park. 

I have used a similar technique in this post. To help dismantle the claim that DNA is a specification for making human bodies, I have asked smaller questions such as:

• Is there someone showing DNA specifies how to make a cell?
• Is there someone showing DNA specifies how to make a skeleton?
• Is there someone showing DNA specifies how to make an eye?
• Is there someone showing DNA specifies how to make a heart?
• Is there someone showing DNA specifies how to make a brain?

The answers to all these questions are: no, there isn't. The "no" answers to such questions help show how bogus and phony are claims that DNA is a specification for making a human body.  For insight on  why we were told for so long the lie that DNA is a specification for making a body, read my post here. 

Below is a diagram of Darwinist theory that I took from page 69 of the source here, and annotated in red. The diagram shows how an appeal to luck is at the core of Darwinism. At the top of the diagram we have an appeal to "fortuitous mutations," "fortuitous" being a word meaning "lucky." Since the so-called "natural selection" of Darwinism is not actually selection (as it involves no actual choice), a better description of Darwinism is "Darwin's theory of insanely lucky luck."  With the annotations in red, the diagram explains why Darwinism fails as a theory trying to explain very complex anatomy innovations and very complex cell innovations. Because DNA does not specify the structure of cells and does not specify anatomy, there are no possible lucky mutations in DNA that can explain how we got the enormously complex biology innovations that we see in the natural world. 

A biologist once compared the progression from a speck-sized zygote (existing just after human conception) to a full human body as being something like a pile of bricks forming into a house. Such an analogy was very misleading, for two reasons. The first is that while a brick is an unorganized thing (a mere block of clay), a cell is a fantastically organized component typically capable of the marvel of self-reproduction, which (given the cell's complexity) is a marvel as astonishing as an automobile splitting into two working automobiles.  So it is extremely misleading to compare cells to bricks.  Secondly, the organization of a human body is a state of vast organization requiring almost infinitely more coordinated organization than the amount of organization needed to make a house from bricks. 

The walls of a house can be built with about 10,000 bricks.  An adult human requires about 37 trillion cells of about 200 types, most of which must be placed in the right places in the body.  Most of these cells are gigantically more organized than a brick wall, with the average cell requiring a special arrangement of about 100 trillion atoms. Given such a reality, the progression from a speck-sized zygote to the full organization of the human body is not like a pile of bricks progressing to become a house, but something more like a million piles of bricks, wires, doors, glass panes, pipes, floor boards and electrical wires gradually progressing to become a city as organized as New York City, without any visible builders being around.  How there can occur such a marvel of organization is a mystery a thousand miles over the heads of today's biologists. 

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 7)

Below are some posts I have published about people reporting they saw mysterious orbs with the naked eye:

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 1 of 4)

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 2 of 4)

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 3 of 4)

Naked-Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 4 of 4)

Naked Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 5)

Naked Eye Sightings of Mysterious Orbs (Part 6)

Let us look at some more cases of this type. 

In 2012 NASA released a light map of planet Earth made from observations by an orbiting satellite. The map was made from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. Most continents appeared as expected. For example, the map of the United States showed many lights around the heavily populated east coast, but not much light around the Rocky Mountains, where much fewer people live.

But the light map had one big surprise: there were many lights shown over the eastern half of western Australia. The eastern half of western Australia has little population. So how could there be all these lights coming from such a sparsely populated area?  In my 2015 post here I discuss how a NASA "burn map" discredits the explanation that the lights were caused by vegetation fires. 

The very interesting TV show "What on Earth?" which can be seen on HBO Max deals mostly with anomalies that show up in satellite photos. One episode partially deals with the Australian mystery lights (Season 1, episode 6).  Below is a photo of my TV screen at the moment the program was discussing the strange lights.  Few people live in the area with most of the lights we see below.

At the 36 minutes left mark in the episode, we have an interview with an aboriginal Australian named Francis who suggests an explanation.  He recalls seeing several times what the Australians call "min min lights."  The narrator says this:  "For centuries, aboriginal peoples have told stories of bright hovering lights in Australia; they're known as min min lights."

Francis gives this eyewitness account:

"This light would appear from -- it seems from out of nowhere, I can't explain it. But it was a shimmering ball of fire-like substance. It would dance through the trees to its own rhythm, it would seem. It would hover there and shimmer and then PHEW it was gone." 

The narrator tells us that there have been thousands of reports of these mysterious "min min lights," and that "eyewitnesses report seeing glowing orbs in the sky." The episode gives us no preferred explanation of the cause of the lights shown on the screen above, leaving the matter as one of its many unsolved mysteries.

An Australian news article says this about this topic:

"The lights have been described by witnesses as floating, fast-moving balls of colour that glow in the night sky...Sometimes the lights are blue and other times they are white or yellow.

In Queensland, the Boulia Shire Council notifies visitors 'in the interest of tourism' that they are in the land of the Min Min lights and that they may spot them as they drive for the next 120 kilometres....Some Aboriginal people believe the Min Min lights are the spirits of elders."

The following case report comes from a scientific paper published in Frontiers in Psychology:

"One evening, while I was in the room where we were staying, I suddenly saw a great white light. It was not dazzling, but its whiteness was unnatural, I mean it did not seem to be like the white light from natural or artificial sources we know, nor did it come in from outside. Then, some balls of light appeared; I did not count them, but there were perhaps five or six, and they could have been about 1.5 meters in diameter. These balls were translucent with the same color as the light, but less transparent and thicker, though I noticed that they did not cast any shadow. At the time, I had a profound feeling as if all the beings of the world were within me and, at the same, I felt as if I were within them. The source of light was ellipsoid. It was Love and Joy, and I felt a sort of stream through me. I use the term ‘stream’, but it was not so clearly definable. I cannot use the term ‘wind’, because wind comes from outside, while I felt this stream inside me. I was so enraptured that I had stopped breathing. I was fully lucid, however, and realized that I was not breathing, so I started breathing again, but my breathing disturbed the vision and, after a few breaths, it vanished.”

Recently in the news we read this story:

"Images and videos of the observation flooded Chinese social media platforms Monday, with many users commonly describing it as a 'misty ball of light' that moved from west to east without emitting any sound...The ball of light appeared Monday morning above the nation's capital and as far as Tianjin and the central province of Shanxi and Shandong in the east." 

We then hear some astronomer speculating about excess fuel released by a rocket, but the speculation does not sound very plausible, and no evidence is provided to back it up. We should remember in cases like these that scientists are almost infinitely imaginative in inventing stories to explain sightings they find embarrassing, and seem to prefer the most wispy speculation to simply saying, "I don't know what that was." 

The report below of a mysterious orb comes from 1837:

"During the night a luminous sphere was observed by local people. It came closer to the ground at dawn, illuminating the fields with an intense reddish glow."

In the same book we read this:

"Imagine that we have been transported back in time to Hamburg, Germany, on the 15th day of December in the year of the Lord 1547. Historian Simon Goulart, in his Tresors Admirables et Memorables de notre Temps (1600) writes that on that day the sailors who were aboard ships in the harbor of Hamburg saw in the air, at midnight, a glistening globe as fiery as the Sun."

On another page of the book we read of a Saint Benedict who "saw the soul of Germanus, Bishop of Capua, in a fiery globe to be carried up by Angels into heaven."  Another page of the book gives us this account from 1382:

"Before the Maillets uprising, a fiery flashing globe was seen for a period of eight days, 'roaming from door to door above the city of Paris, without there being any wind agitation nor lightning or noise of thunder, and on the contrary, the weather never ceased to be serene.' "

A 1433 report stated that "a luminous globe appeared in the air for several hours." We read that 11 years later in Italy the following occurred:

"Over three months multiple witnesses saw globes of light, golden in color, both inside and outside a church. The story by Don Massimo, a Benedictine monk, mentions that 'turning to the church he and his companions saw a globe as thick as a printing press.' "

We read that in 1650 "A luminous globe brighter than the Moon shed a vertical light on the city, and then it faded as it passed over the enemy camp."

From 1729 we have this account:

"Two hours prior to sunrise, M. Suen-Hof saw red vapors in the sky, which stretched in wide bands from north to south, then proceeded to gather together into a fiery globe about two feet in diameter. The globe kept moving in the same direction where the reddish vapors had appeared. It emitted sparks and was as bright as the sun. After moving through a quarter of the sky it disappeared abruptly, leaving thick black smoke and a burst of sound similar to cannon shot."

The same page tells us the next year someone saw "an amazing Globe of fire," as large as a building. In 1864 the following was reported in Florence, Italy. 

" 'A white globe of fire many times larger than the full moon seemed hanging almost motionless in the air.'  Shades of orange and blue passed over its surface. After a full minute it suddenly disappeared, vanishing on the spot. The witness adds: 'Only just before its disappearance a smaller ball was seen immediately below it, of a fiery orange colour, the first one appearing at that moment of the same hue."

We had recently in the Daily Mail an article with the title "Mystery of Massachusetts' 'Monsterland' - a five-mile stretch of unchartered woods where locals claim they've seen flying saucers, glowing orange orbs and BIG FOOT."  The article is about a wooded area near Leominster, Massachusetts in the USA. We have a video interview with a Bigfoot investigator. At the 2:10 mark in the video the man says, "We witnessed a ball of light change and turn into two eyes...and then become basically this eight-foot shadow that ran in front of us." 

We read this:

"Claims of apelike creatures, humanoid footprints, and car engines suddenly giving out are now rife - with several, including Le Blanc, spotting strange orbs floating overhead.

He believes the latter and the at-large beast are indelibly linked, citing other reports of people actually spotting the monster holding these 'orange spheres'.

Different objects described as 'flying saucers' have also been reported, with some caught on camera.

Le Blanc suspects they are all related, and claims to have witnessed the floating orbs at least nine times over the years. 

Several other sightings have been reported since, including one on July 3 of 2012, and another almost ten years later on April 13, 2022.

Both occurrences were caught on camera, and the orbs in each are eerily identical. 

All the more alarming is that the strange orange objects - reminiscent even from afar of fireballs - fit the descriptions of countless Leominster residents over the decades, including several whom have spoke to Le Blanc.

'People have seen Bigfoot holding an orb,' he told the outlet during a tour through  the area in 2022. 'They look like a basketball with plasma swirling around and they’re silent. I've just seen them hovering over the sky and just blink out and disappear.' "

The British medium Gladys Osborne Leonard achieved successes so remarkable that she is sometimes called "the British Leonora Piper," a reference to a medium whose successes are described here.  Gladys stated that she was visiting friends while her mother was sick, and Gladys awoke at 2 AM:

"I looked up and saw in front of me, but about five feet above the level of my body, a large, circular patch of light about four feet in diameter. In this light I saw my mother quite distinctly.  Her face looked several years younger than I had seen it a few hours before. A pink flush of health was on her cheeks, her eyes were clear and shining, and a smile of utter happiness was on her lips. She gazed downward on me for a moment, seeming to convey to me an intense feeling of relief and a sense of safety and well-being. Then the vision faded. I was awake all the time, quite conscious of my surroundings."

The next day she found her mother had died at 2 AM. 

 The book "Automatic Or Spirit Writing: With Other Psychic Experiences" by Sara A. Underwood is an interesting account of the paranormal, one that can be read online free using the link here. On page 35 Sara gives this account of witnessing the death of a friend:

"Slowly over the dying one's face spread a mellow radiant mist — I know no other way to describe it. In a few moments it covered the dying face as with a veil, and spread in a circle of about a foot beyond, over the pillow, the strange yellowish white light all the more distinct from the partial darkness of the room. Then from the center of this, immediately over the hidden face, appeared an apparently living face with smiling eyes which looked directly into mine, gazing at me with a look so full of comforting assurance that I could scarcely feel frightened. But it was so real and so strange that I wondered if I were temporarily crazed, and as it disappeared I called some one from another room, and went out into the open air for a few moments to recover myself under the midnight stars. When I was sure of myself I returned and took my place again alone. Then I asked that, if that appearance were real and not an hallucination, would it be made once more manifest to me ; and again the phenomenon was repeated, and the kind, smiling face looked up at me — a face new to me yet wondrously familiar."

My photo below from October 2015 shows a mysterious blue orb with face-like features:

Scoring Bunk and Baloney in Science Literature

Science literature is very heavily infested with bunk and baloney. But how can you detect the level of bunk and baloney and BS in a particular piece of science literature? I offer here an informal system in which each of particular sins earns the article or paper a single point. When the total of these points reaches a level higher than five or ten, you have a good sign that the article or paper is probably bunk or baloney. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Phrase "Scientists Know" That Does Not Correspond to Direct Observations

An extremely bad defect in scientific literature is to claim that scientists know something they do not actually know, because no one ever observed it. For example, we often hear these claims:

• The claim that scientists know that most matter is dark matter.
• The claim that scientists know that most of the universe consists of dark energy.
• The claim that scientists know that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
• The claim that scientists know that the mind is a product of the brain.
• The claim that scientist know that memories are stored in the brain. 

Scientists do not know any of these things, because they do not correspond to direct observations. For example, no one has ever directly observed dark matter or dark energy, and neither of these concepts has any place in the Standard Model of Physics. And no one has ever discovered school-learned knowledge or episodic memories by microscopically studying brain tissue. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Building Blocks of Life"

Scientific literature is constantly misusing and abusing the phrase "building blocks of life." The very term is an improper one, because living things are internally dynamic to the highest degree, with a constant replacement of tiny parts (protein molecules and cells) occurring within an organism; so a comparison to a structure with static "building block" parts is inappropriate. If anyone refers to "building blocks of life," there are only two half-honest ways to use the term: (1) when referring to macroscopic life, the "building blocks of life" would be cells; (2) when referring to microscopic one-celled life, the "building blocks of life" would be organelles or their constituents (protein molecules). Since neither proteins nor organelles are simple units like brick building blocks but instead very complex structures requiring thousands of well-arranged atoms, it would never be more than half-honest to refer to such things as "building blocks of life." But routinely science literature will refer to some low-level chemicals such as amino acids or nucleotides as being "building blocks of life" when they are no such things (being at best mere component parts of the component parts of life).   A particularly egregious abuse of language occurs when science literature mentions some organic chemicals that are not necessary for life and are neither the building blocks of life nor the building blocks of the building blocks of life, and such literature refers to such chemicals as "building blocks of life." Such misstatements occur often in astrobiology literature and origin of life literature. 

Add 1 Point for Any Attempt to Pass Off Hi-Tech Scientist Manual Manipulations As Something Giving Us Hints About the Origin of Life

A very ridiculous phenomenon in scientific literature is when some press release describes some scientist fiddling that uses ridiculously unnatural glass lab equipment and very many purposeful experimenter interventions, and when this is passed off as something that tells us about what happened naturally when there was no such fancy equipment and no such purposeful goal-seeking experimenters. 

Can you see the fallacy?

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Dark Matter"

Scientists speculate that most of the matter in the universe is some invisible form of matter not yet discovered. They call this "dark matter." But that is a misleading term which implies visible matter that is dark. The "dark matter" imagined by cosmologists is invisible.  A non-misleading term cosmologists should be using for such a possibility is "invisible matter." Why don't scientists use the honest term here? Because then we might get an idea of how much they are appealing to invisible causal realities, and realize how they are throwing stones from glass houses when they scold people for believing in events such as spirit manifestations caused by invisible realities. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Dark Energy"

Scientists speculate that most of the energy in the universe is some invisible form of energy not yet discovered. They call this "dark energy." But that is a misleading term which implies visible energy that is dark. The "dark energy" imagined by cosmologists is invisible, and cosmologists should be calling it "invisible energy."

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Earth-like Planet" in Reference to Some Known Planet Outside of Our Solar System

Many Earth-sized planets have been discovered, but no Earth-like planet has been discovered outside of our solar system. We should not be calling a planet "Earth-like" unless life was discovered, and life has not been discovered on any other planet. Scientists and science journalists very often describe a merely Earth-sized planet as an "Earth-like planet." Such language is very misleading. 

Add 1 Point for Any Language Describing the Human Mind as  Merely "Consciousness"

People who use the term "consciousness" to describe the human mind and its experiences are engaging in what can be called shrink-speaking or shadow speaking. Shadow speaking is when you speak of something in the most diminutive or reductive terms, to try to make that thing sound as if it is a mere shadow of itself.  The most diminutive term you could possibly use to describe a human mind and its experiences is to use the term "consciousness," for the same term can be used to refer to an insect, which is conscious of its surroundings. Human minds are gigantically multifaceted realities with a huge set of diverse capabilities, something vastly more than mere "consciousness." 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Astrobiologist"

Until extraterrestrial life is discovered, the term "astrobiologist" must be classified as a misleading term, as it suggests or implies that extraterrestrial life has been discovered.  It would be less misleading if people referred to astrobiologists as "extraterrestrial life theorists," which would correctly signify the speculative nature of their studies. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Body Plan"

The term "body plan" is a profoundly misleading term that biologists love to use, a term that opens the door to deceptions about DNA. In biology literature the term "body plan" has a very limited meaning, something vastly different from a complete plan for constructing an organism. According to a scientific paper "a body plan is a suite of characters shared by a group of phylogenetically related animals at some point during their development." The wikipedia.org article on "body plan" tells us this: "A body plan, Bauplan (German plural Baupläne), or ground plan is a set of morphological features common to many members of a phylum of animals." 

According to this definition, all chordates (including men, bears, dogs and fish) have the same body plan. So when biologists talk about "the human body plan" they

are merely referring to the common characteristics of all chordates, including men, bears, dogs and fish:  basically just the existence of a backbone and bilateral symmetry (having the same things on both sides of the body).  They are not referring to the structure of the 200 types of cells in the human body, or the structure of internal organs, and are not referring to the dynamic intricacies of human physiology. But anyone hearing the term "body plan" will think the term referred to a complete specification of a human body.  So, most misleadingly, biologists may say that this or that "determines the body plan," when all they mean is the beginning of a bilateral organism with a backbone, something a thousand times simpler than the final product of the internally dynamic and enormously organized human body.  This is as misleading as someone saying that he has built a starship, when he has merely built a boat in the shape of a star. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Scientific Consensus" About Any Controversial Topic, or Any Claim That "Scientists Agree" About Such a Topic

The term "scientific consensus" is one of the most abused terms in the world of scientific academia. Some leading dictionaries define a consensus as an agreed opinion among a group of people. The first definition of "consensus" by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "general agreement: unanimity." But scientists have very often referred to a "scientific consensus" on some particular topic when there was no good evidence that such a consensus existed, and quite a bit of evidence that no consensus actually exists.  

Some scientist advancing a new theory will start to say "more and more" scientists are accepting his theory. Once he starts to get a few people adopting his ideas, he may claim that "there is a growing trend" towards accepting his theory.  If some small fraction of scientists adopts his theory, he may claim this as a "growing consensus." Then if maybe half of scientists adopt his theory, he may claim this as a "consensus."  It is easy to see why such misleading statements occur. The more popular you make a theory sound, the more people will be likely to adopt it. 

I may note that claims of either a scientific consensus or anything remotely approaching a scientific consensus tend to be extremely unreliable.  The only way to reliably measure how many scientists believe in a theory is to do a secret ballot of scientists, in a well-designed poll offering a fair statement of belief alternatives, and including an answer of "I don't know" or "I'm not sure." Such secret ballots (of large numbers of scientists) never occur or almost never occur. 

Add 1 Point for Any Claim That Some Scientist Dogma Is "Not Controversial" Whenever There Are Any Respectable Scientists or Scholars Disagreeing With Such a Dogma

A variation of abuses of the word "scientific consensus" is to refer to some unproven dogma, and claim that is "not controversial." The term "controversial" is defined as "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement." Anything on which there is public disagreement by serious people is a controversial topic.  It is incorrect to claim, for example,  that Darwinian macroevolution or an origin of life from chemical accidents or brain-stored memories are ideas that are "not controversial."  

Add 1 Point for Any Claim of Brain Regions "Lighting Up" or "Activating" During Particular Mental Activities

All regions in the brain are constantly active. When scientists do scans of brains, they typically find differences in activity of less than half of one percent (about 1 part in 200) between one region and another. But science writers often refer to such very slight differences in activity as cases of some particular brain region "lighting up"  or some particular brain region "activating." That is misleading, as it suggests a large difference in activity, when the actual difference in activity is only very tiny. 

Add 1 Point for Any Psychology Claims or Biology Claims That Are Backed Up Mainly By an Appeal to Quantum Mechanics or Anything Quantum

Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics, and is not a psychology theory or a biology theory. There have been endless examples of people who try to back up dubious psychology claims or biology claims by making unconvincing appeals to quantum mechanics. Such appeals are almost impossible to substantiate or disprove, given the intrinsic obscurity of quantum mechanics. It is sometimes joked that you can prove anything using Freudian psychology, Bayesian mathematics or quantum mechanics.   

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Word "Skull," When Used to Describe Bone Fragments

The word "skull" is a word with a very exact definition. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a skull as "the skeleton of the head of a vertebrate forming a bony or cartilaginous case that encloses and protects the brain and chief sense organs and supports the jaws."  Paleontologists and their press workers routinely misuse the word "skull," by using the term to refer to small bone fragments believed to be from a skull. Calling such fragments a skull is often as misleading as using the term "automobile" to refer to a bumper, a seat and a tire collected from a junk yard.

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Word "Genetically Determined" Whenever There Is Mere Evidence Something Is Genetically Influenced

Scientists and science writers very often claim that some outcome is "genetically determined" when there is merely evidence that the outcome is genetically influenced.  There is a huge difference between a first thing merely influencing or affecting a second thing (merely having some effect on it), and the first thing determining the second thing (being the main cause of that thing).  For example, the weather influences how a car looks, but the weather does not determine how a car looks (a car's look is determined by the manufacturing process used to create it).  We do not have any evidence that either human mental traits or the structure of the human body is genetically determined. Because genes merely specify low-level chemicals such as protein molecules, we have the strongest reason for thinking that human mental traits and the physical structure of humans cannot be determined by genes. All that we have is evidence for a much weaker claim: the claim that human mental traits and the physical structure of humans is influenced or affected by genes.

Add 1 Point for Any Claim That Scientists Follow Some Special Algorithm Called "the Scientific Method"

The myth that scientists follow some algorithm called "the scientific method" is one of the most long-standing myths of scientist culture. Statements of how this "scientific method" works vary widely but a typical description will include steps such as this:

1. Formulate a hypothesis
2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis
3. Communicate results whether the experiment supports the hypothesis
4. If the experiment fails to support the hypothesis, formulate a new hypothesis.

Scientists do their work in a hundred different ways, and most do not follow such a method. Descriptions of the so-called "scientific method" make it look like scientists are ready to discard a hypothesis when it fails to be supported by an experiment.  The reality is that belief traditions arise in scientific communities, and scientists tend to very stubbornly cling to such belief traditions, regardless of observational or experimental results.  When scientists get a result that conflicts with their belief traditions (which may include some theory), scientists typically handle this in ways that do not involve abandoning the theory they are testing.  Such ways may include:

• Creatively interpreting the negative result to make it look like something supporting the hypothesis being tested.
• Slightly changing the hypothesis to slightly respond to whatever result was obtained.
• Questioning the competence or the analysis of the scientists producing a result conflicting with the theory. 
• Playing around with the data in some statistical way until the negative result can be claimed as a positive result in favor of the hypothesis (or a neutral result consistent with the hypothesis).
• Dismissing the result conflicting with the hypothesis by special pleading, such as claiming that far-above-chance results in tests of psi or ESP were produced by subjects cheating, or claiming that there was experimenter error or equipment error.  
• Simply filing away the results without trying to publish them, and retrying the experiment, perhaps with some modification that will make the experiment much more likely to produce a seemingly positive result. 

Add 1 Point for Any Claim That Humans Are "Hard-Wired" to Act in Some Particular Way, or That Humans Act in Some Way Because of "Neural Circuitry"

The term "hard wiring" is an old mechanical term meaning to be determined by a particular arrangement of wires. Before modern electronics and software programming, the behavior of certain mechanical devices such as switchboards were determined by arrangements of wires, particular arrangements being called types of "hard wiring." Although neuroscientists sometimes speak as if investigating arrangements of wire-like components in the brain might shed light on human behavior, no one has ever shown that any human behavior can be explained by some arrangement of such components in the brain. It is therefore very misleading to claim that humans are "hard-wired" to do any particular thing. 

The very term "neural circuit" is misleading. A circuit is an unbroken electrical path, typically a roughly circular path that starts and ends in the same place. Neural pathways are not circular or even rather circular, they do not start and end in the same place, and they have a huge number of breaks, the breaks of synaptic gaps. Therefore, sections of brain tissue should not be referred to as "neural circuits." As for the the idea that some behavior or mental state or mental trait can be explained by some arrangement of tissue in the brain, such an idea has no empirical support. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Word "Regulate" or "Control" or "Sculpt" or "Mold" or "Direct" When Used About Genes or Chemicals

Chemicals inside the body are mindless things, and it is misleading to refer to them using action words that suggest they are intelligent agents. The quote below in a biologist's essay suggests that there is a massive problem of biologists using verbs in an inappropriate way when describing genes:

“In scientific, as well as popular descriptions today, genes 'act,' 'behave,' 'direct,' 'control,' 'design,' 'influence,' have 'effects,' are 'responsible for,' are 'selfish,' and so on, as if minds of their own with designs and intentions. But at the same time, a counter-narrative is building, not from the media but from inside science itself."

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Term "Natural Selection" or "Selection Pressure"

Selection is a term meaning a choice by a conscious agent. The so-called "natural selection" imagined by those who use such a term does not actually involve any selection or choice.  The "natural selection" imagined by biologists merely involves a survival-of-the-fittest effect, in which fitter organisms survive longer or reproduce more. The duplicity of using the term "natural selection" for some imagined effect that is not actually selection is a word trick that was started by Charles Darwin, who coined the term "natural selection."

When biologists use the term "selection pressure," they are simply using a variant of the term "natural selection." The term "selection pressure" is doubly-misleading, first because there is no actual selection involved in so-called selection pressure (selection being an act by a conscious agent), and second because there is no actual pressure involved.  

Add I Point for Any Use of the Term "Early Human" Referring to Any Organisms That Did Not Use Symbols or Language

The defining characteristic of humans is their use of symbols.  The term "early human" is very often misleadingly used in science literature, to refer to pre-human species which have never been proven to have used symbols. Such language is used to try to bolster claims that species arising before humans were ancestors of humans.  A person who lacks any good evidence that Species X existing before humans evolved into humans may simply take the shortcut of calling this Species X an "early human" species.  But if there is no good evidence that Species X used symbols, then it should not be called an "early human" species. 

Add I Point for Any Use of the Terms "Genetic Blueprint" or "Genetic Program" or "Genetic Recipe"

What I call the Great DNA Myth is the myth that inside DNA is some blueprint or recipe that specifies how to make a human body.  

There are various ways in which this false idea is stated, all equally false:

• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a blueprint for an organism.
• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a recipe for making an organism.
• Someone may describe DNA or the genome as a program for building an organism.
• Someone may claim that DNA or genomes specify the anatomy of an organism. 
• Someone may claim that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) specify phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism).
• Someone may claim that genotypes (the DNA in organisms) "map"  phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an organism) or "map to" phenotypes.
• Someone may claim that DNA contains "all the instructions needed to make an organism."
• Someone may claim that there is a "genetic architecture" for an organism's body or some fraction of that body. 
• Using a little equation, someone may claim that a "genotype plus the environment equals the phenotype," a formulation as false  as the preceding statements, since we know of nothing in the environment that would cause phenotypes to arise from genotypes that do not specify such phenotypes. 

All of these versions are equally false, because DNA only contains low-level chemical information (such as which sequences of amino acids make up polypeptide chains that are the starting points of protein molecules), not high-level structural information,  Many biology authorities have confessed this reality, and at the post here you can read statements by more than twenty biology experts stating that DNA is not a blueprint or a program or a recipe for building an organism. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Phrase "Essential for" Whenever a Reference to Something That Might Exist Without the Item Claimed to Be "Essential For" That Thing

In the world of neuroscience we often have incorrect claims that this or that protein or this or that brain part is "essential for" some cognitive ability.  In some cases experiments have shown that the cognitive ability continues to exist even when the supposedly "essential" thing has been removed. 

Add 1 Point for Any Use of the Phrases "Breakthrough" or "Sheds New Light" or "Sheds Light" or Similar Phrases, Whenever the Writer Fails to Justify Such Claims (as Almost Always Happens)

Certain laudatory terms are stock phrases of press release writers trying to make unimportant science research sound very important. Almost always the writer using such phrases fails to justify the use of such phrases. It seems that these days scientists are doing pretty much nothing to correct inaccurate press release boasts about their research. 

With a wink and a nod...

Add 1 Point for Any Claim That Something Has Made Scientists More Hopeful About Achieving Some Grand Task

When writers cannot report that scientists have achieved some task, they often regard to weaker substitute claims, such as the claim that some research has made scientists "more hopeful" or "more optimistic" about achieving some grand goal, or that some research has put scientists "on the brink" or "on the edge" of achieving such a goal. Such claims are usually groundless. For example, for at least fifty years we have had completely groundless claims that this or that experiment has made scientists "more hopeful" about being able to explain the origin of life. 

Add 1 Point for Any References to Brains When Research Did Not Involve Brains

Some people have the erroneous idea that neuroscience research tends to be more reliable than psychology research. So they will write prose that uses terms such as "your brain" or "the human brain" or "our brains" when referring to purely psychology results that did not involve studying brains.  Such language is misleading. For example, if a test merely shows that people remember movies better when movies have violent deaths, there is no justification for a headline such as "Your Brain Remembers Movies Better If They Are Bloodier." 

Add 1 Point for Any Claim in a Scientific Article That There Are Parallel Universes or Any Quantum Mechanics Basis for Believing in Such a Thing

The speculation that there are parallel universes in which there are an infinite number of different copies of you (each slightly different) is Fake Physics not real physics or real science. 

Add 1 Point for Any Scientific Article That Starts Out as a Failure Confession and Then Becomes a "But Now There May Be a Solution" Claim

It seems that scientific literature almost never gives us candid statements of ignorance. It would be very good if we were to often see articles with titles such as "We Don't Actually Understand Human Origins" or "We Don't Know How Minds Arise" or "How Human Bodies Arise From a Tiny Zygote Is Still a Mystery." But we almost never see such articles. It is not rare, however, to see a type of article that starts out as a confession that all of the previous theories have failed, but which then turns into a kind of "but now a team of scientists think they have the solution" article. Almost always the new theory announced is not really any solution to the problem, and suffers from the same type of defects in previous attempts to solve the problem. 

Add 1 Point for Any Paper That Offers Some Fancy Computer Model or Arcane Computer Programming and Claims That This Is a Model of How the Brain Works

Computer programming is produced by humans who willfully use computer languages to accomplish tasks. Brains are not produced by anything similar to computer programming. The brain has nothing corresponding to the subroutines or data structures or programming objects (such as Java classes) used by computer programs.  So anyone who offers a computer program as a model of how the brain works is fooling you.  Don't be fooled by the term "neural net," an inappropriate term used for a type of software structure that has no high resemblance to anything in the brain. 

Add 1 Point for Any Scientific Paper Based Mainly on Experiments Involving Simulations Done Purely Inside a Computer, Not Involving Physical Experimentation

What can often occur with such papers is that conclusions are made based on purely make-believe data. The fake data is never called fake or make-believe, but usually called "simulated." 

Add 1 Point for Any Scientific Article That Starts Out Claiming Some General Insight About Mind or Memory, Revealing Near Its End That It Involved Only Some Mouse Experiment

News articles claiming some new finding or insight about minds or memory are typically written to give you the impression that something was found out about human minds or human memory. Very often you will find out near the end of the article that the supposed insight or claimed finding comes from some experiment that only involved mice. Because neuroscientists these days are notorious for engaging in Questionable Research Practices when doing experiments involving mice, practices such as using way-too-small  study group sizes, any new research based on mere experiments with mice is 90% likely to be worthless. 

Add 1 Point for Any Scientific Paper Written by One or More Authors With a Financial Interest in Reaching the Conclusion the Paper Reaches

Nowadays many types of science papers are written by scientists with financial interests in particular companies that may benefit if the conclusions reached by the paper are true.  A scientist may be an investor in such a company, or may be on the payroll of such a company.  You can find such conflicts of interest by looking at the "Competing Interests" section of a paper, although often such sections are hard to read or interpret. We should also remember that many scientists are essentially theory investors who have much to gain or lose by promoting some particular theory.  The success or popularity of some theory may greatly affect how much money a scientist receives in grants, or how much money the scientist receives from speaking engagements or book deals.